You are here: / / RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION...
,

RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY.

The Fourth Department, remitting the case, determined a Rodriguez hearing was necessary to determine whether a witness’s single photo identification of the defendant was confirmatory:

We agree with defendant that, during the suppression hearing, the court erred in precluding defendant from cross-examining the police investigator on the issue whether “Witness #1” was sufficiently familiar with defendant in order to render the single photo identification of defendant by that witness “merely confirmatory” … . Although the court conducted a Wade hearing, which ordinarily eliminates the need for a Rodriguez hearing … , we conclude that the court’s error during the suppression hearing renders a Rodriguez hearing necessary in this case … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine whether the identification by the subject witness was truly confirmatory in nature … and, if the court determines that the identification was not confirmatory, it must further determine whether the single photo identification procedure employed with the subject witness was unduly suggestive … . People v Hoffman, 2016 NY Slip Op 04508, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)

You might also like
THE PLEA-BARGAINED SENTENCE WAS BELOW THE STATUTORY MINIMUM, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PATERNITY BY ESTOPPEL BEFORE ORDERING TEST FOR BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY.
SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA IS NOT “DANGEROUS CONTRABAND” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND” STATUTES (FOURTH DEPT).
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE DEMONSTRATED MITIGATING FACTORS WARRANTING A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO SORA RISK LEVEL ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) OBTAINED BY STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT MUST BE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR GAINS OR LOSSES AFTER THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE AGREED AMOUNT PLUS THE GAINS THAT HAD ACCRUED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER... FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE...